Help with Wikipedia article?

[EvanK]

I think Terry's explanation has finally sunk in as to why Wikipedia keeps rejecting the article -- I am not neutral. At least I finally understand why they are doing it.

I would have pointed that out too, but I thought it was obvious. Kidding aside, here's the issue: someone could write the world's most objective critical analysis of a product or service, but, if that person has a financial interest in the product or service, then their credibility as a neutral source is automatically discounted. It doesn't matter if they are nice, well-intended, fully objective, or even self-critical. A real world example: in my work as a reporter covering a major industry, many times I ask companies if they can supply customer references. I then separately interview those customers to see if what's on their minds is the same or different from what the company is pitching to me. Sometimes, the companies deliver alleged "customers" who turn out to be resellers or partners of the company. When that happens, it makes me wonder WHY -- is the company trying to hide that their real customers aren't happy? Are they trying to hide that there AREN'T any real customers? I use this approach not because I'm a cynic, but because I know (as does Wikipedia) that having a financial interest automatically makes a source non-neutral. There's also the issue of vetting a source. If a company A supplies me with the name of company B as its customer reference, how do I know company B's owner is not company A's brother-in-law? This is an area where I do some homework and follow my experience and intuition. Similarly, if Wiki's moderators see an article about the vintage computer kit in Wired or CNET, they can assume it's legit, because those publication's editors are not easily fooled. Conversely, if the third-party reference is a seemingly random web page, then who knows? It's risky to allow that as a legitimate source.

If anyone like Evan or James could get the N8VEM mentioned at some level into the independent media

Don't take this the wrong way (because I mean it to be explanatory, not nasty) .... but please understand that as a credible mainstream journalist, my job is not to "get the N8VEM mentioned". My job isn't to be anyone's tool and "get" people's stuff mentioned. My job is mention whatever happens to be newsworthy. Even if you were my best friend in the world, I wouldn't "get" it mentioned if it weren't newsworthy. So don't go around thinking otherwise. What I can do as a favor to you is connect you and your project with the appropriate editor (Jon), i.e. basically I can make an introduction. For the sake of our mutual interest in the vintage computing hobby, I hope Jon is able to use the info. But he nor I would write about anything that didn't fit into our beats, no matter who or what it may be.

 

[EvanK]

So Wikipedia are calling Andrew Lynch and all the other 50 people involved untrustworthy and not authorities in their field?

No. You're taking it all wrong -- you are INVOLVED in the project, and thus you are being EMOTIONAL; in other words you're not NEUTRAL and probably can't be on this topic. That is not an insult. There is nothing wrong with being involved and caring about something. But it does mean you're not a good third-party source because you're overly on the "side" of the kit creator. So, you're a good person to add commentary, but not a good person to cite as a balanced source.

For example, let's consider Vince Briel. He would not be a good third-party source re: the Vintage Computer Festival because he participates in the show as an exhibitor and has something to gain if the show does well. Whereas a regular attendee who writes a blog about the show MIGHT be different because it's an independent neutral opinion. Going a step beyond that, a local reporter or someone from Boing Boing would be a great citation.

 

[NobodyIsHere]

Hi Evan, OK I think I understand now. It is cool. I just did not understand the media aspects and would not think to ask you or anyone else to do anything unethical.

It seems to me that Wikipedia has become a lot more strict about what they accept for an article. I have written other Wikipedia entries and modified some as well. However, it has been a while and this N8VEM article has been the most difficult.

I appreciate whatever help you can offer.

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch

 

[Druid6900]

I think what Evan is getting at is, the FURTHER you are away from the project, the better a source you are.

If Andrew was retailing the kits and I bought one and then blogged about the experience of the assembling, construction of the boards, ease of obtaining the parts necessary, etc. etc., while displaying my accreditations in electronics, years in the design, build and repair industry, etc. etc., I would be a much better source than Andrew and the people involved in his site because I am at arms-length and have no vested interest in the product itself other than a user.

 

[Terry Yager]

I didn't mean to suggest anything unethical either. Actually, I was thinking more of your blog, not realizing it was more-or-less abandoned. I just thought all the other writers in the world were reading it daily, in hope of stealing your ideas for articles of their own. Point is, there're probably quite a few journalists who'd do an article, if you can just manage to get their attention somehow.

--T

 

[Dr_Acula]

Sane and wise advice here from those with the experience. I realise I'm not nearly neutral enough to write a wikipedia article *grin* But that doesn't dilute the passion here! I have sitting next to me a small board which replicates my first computer from 1983, and it cost far less and uses much less power. And I just mapped the arrow keys on an IBM keyboard so that they work with Wordstar. Plus CP/M is now networking wirelessly - something it never managed to do "back in the day".

I hope it counts as retrocomputing. Certainly the software is. The hardware? Well, my original computer does still exist in bits in the shed. Maybe if I pull some of the old chips out of their sockets and put them in the N8VEM board that might count LOL.

Frustrating as the wikipedia article may be, I reckon there are more than one ways to skin a cat. The print media is a start, and then there are links into the things lots of people are reading, like Make magazine and Instructables. 3600 people have read the N8VEM instructable so far for instance.

Maybe another way with wikipedia is via stealth. There are two links to N8VEM on a search (one in retrocomputing, and one in Z80 ([I put the second one in]). So maybe some text in various articles -eg in CP/M and Z80 some text mentioning this venerable chip/operating system still exists on boards that can be bought today.

I'm going to go for the mainstream media, but then another issue comes up - the N8VEM still is not quite finished. So maybe that is what the wikipedia people are concerned about too - if it is not finished enough to be published as an article in the mainstream media then it isn't finished enough for wikipedia?

 

[MikeS]

Ah, that explains a lot about journalism etc. these days. So, if I understand it correctly, the people who have designed and built an item and know it inside out are not considered reliable sources of information about it, but instead, the farther away we get from those people the more we can rely on the information, especially after we've let various other "non-interested" parties add and amend the information.

Got it; thanks!

 

[Terry Yager]

Maybe another way with wikipedia is via stealth. There are two links to N8VEM on a search (one in retrocomputing, and one in Z80 ([I put the second one in]). So maybe some text in various articles -eg in CP/M and Z80 some text mentioning this venerable chip/operating system still exists on boards that can be bought today.

Good thinking. I was racking my brain trying to figger out other Wikipedia articles to edit. Those two never even occurred to me. I've done the Retrocomputing thing, so mebbe someone else should do something with the CP/M article.

--T

 

[Dr_Acula]

Ah, that explains a lot about journalism etc. these days.

Sadly, I think you are right MikeS. "Electronics Australia" was a magazine that was killed off by such journalism. It had been going for decades - my grandad had copies. But in 2001 a new breed of journalists took over - they seemed to have gone to the "generic journalism" school - the same school as "generic managers", with a philosophy that you can write about things you don't understand. So - out went the electronics projects. Out went the solder. In came some reviews of electronics devices such as stereos and CD players - and the writing for these articles was appalling - almost as if copied verbatim from the promo material.

That was my opinion of what happened, anyway. But it is good to see that a quick search on google brings up others with the same opinion http://www.alternatezone.com/electronics/ea.htm

Fortunately, most of the good staff from EA jumped ship into Silicon Chip.

I guess wikipedia have their policy to stop shameless promotion of products & services - eg the old fake biography that reads as if it was written by a third person but was actually written by the person themselves. Otherwise wikipedia would end up full of glowing articles about politicians and the like.

But this policy doesn't work for technical topics. If I get some spare time at work today I might see if I can edit a few pages on wikipedia.

Addit: Added an entry on the Z80 page. Let's see if it can survive without being deleted. It makes mention of the N8VEM. But there is no link because there is no wikipedia page for the N8VEM...

 

[NobodyIsHere]

Ah, that explains a lot about journalism etc. these days. So, if I understand it correctly, the people who have designed and built an item and know it inside out are not considered reliable sources of information about it, but instead, the farther away we get from those people the more we can rely on the information, especially after we've let various other "non-interested" parties add and amend the information.

Got it; thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touché



Mike, you are quite funny! That was great!

Thanks! I can barely type I am laughing so hard...

Andrew Lynch

 

[EvanK]

Ah, that explains a lot about journalism etc. these days. So, if I understand it correctly, the people who have designed and built an item and know it inside out are not considered reliable sources of information about it, but instead, the farther away we get from those people the more we can rely on the information, especially after we've let various other "non-interested" parties add and amend the information.

Got it; thanks!

If, by "the people who have designed and built an item and know it inside out" you are talking about the kit's designer, then you're an idiot -- because that is not even CLOSE to what I actually said. What I said is, the people who designed the kit or who have a financial stake in it are not OBJECTIVE sources.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the most expert people in existence regarding Apple and Microsoft. Do you think either man is OBJECTIVE about his company? Should reporters, or Wikipedia for that matter, take whatever Jobs and Gates say as neutral and truthful? Of course not.

 

[EvanK]

I think what Evan is getting at is, the FURTHER you are away from the project, the better a source you are.

Well that's not quite what I said. By your paraphrase, someone who is 1,000,000 miles away from a project and totally ignorant of it would be the best source, and obviously that's not the case. So here's a different way of explaining what I meant; perhaps it will help some folks understand better: as a reporter, I always look for the MOST EXPERT source -- who does not have a stake in the news itself. Also, whenever I do quote someone with a stake in the news at hand, then I always qualify in the article what that stake is.

For example, I might write, "Server great guru expert Joe Blow says IBM's new XYZ Server is faster than Dell's ABC Server. However, Mr. Blow sometimes consults for IBM in exchange for stock in Big Blue, so you readers should consider that when evaluating his claim. Conversely, Independent Server User Group president Jim Smith says Dell's and IBM's new servers both have issues."

 

[Terry Yager]

I guess wikipedia have their policy to stop shameless promotion of products & services

Funny you should mention, I was just reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z88DK

Note that the only 'outside source' referenced is their own webpage.

It wouldn't be so frustrating if there were any consistency in the enforcement of their policies.

--T

 

[CP/M User]

lynchaj wrote:

Hi! I think you're right. Wikipedia seems like a waste of time.

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Wikipedia have accepted just about everything I've given them. Though I've only plugged my website a hundred times through it, and added to existing articles.

I agree with Trixter though that the CGA is capable of more than what the average smuck out there knows!

 

[Dr_Acula]

The stealth approach seems to be working. A few days ago if you typed N8VEM into the wikipedia search you got nothing, but now there are three entries. Of course you would have to know what a N8VEM is to search for it, but it is a start. If one line entries can survive, then maybe longer ones can.

It might be worth mentioning that when I typed: Z80 CP/M into google, nothing came up about the N8VEM on the first page, but 4 links came up on the second page. I think google links based on the number of links to other sites - I don't understand their formula completely but it seems to be a measure of 'relevance'.

I just found another entry that can be hacked a bit - the entry on "Single board computer". When I get home I'll take a picture and see if I can upload it to wikipedia.

 

[CP/M User]

Dr_Acula wrote:

It might be worth mentioning that when I typed: Z80 CP/M into google, nothing came up about the N8VEM on the first page, but 4 links came up on the second page. I think google links based on the number of links to other sites - I don't understand their formula completely but it seems to be a measure of 'relevance'.

I thought it was all about how much dosh you have to pay per site which depends on where you appear on a google search bar.

I've just found it easier to go to a CP/M based page (Wikipedia's CP/M page for example) - and stick a link to my Turbo Pascal 3 Website! :-D Easy!! Hopefully when Wikipedia becomes the Encyclopedia to choose - just like Google is the Search Engine to Use, my website will get coverage! :-D

 

[Ole Juul]

Another way to get good Googleicity is to use one of the free blogs. For example, go to Baywords and set up a blog about whatever you want. Just a couple of minutes after posting you will be able to Google it! I'm guessing that sites like that have a lot of traffic and that makes the takeup extremely fast. Nevertheless on my own obscure domain name it works too if its a blog rather than a web page.

 

[Dr_Acula]

A Blog. That is a good idea. Any other suggestions besides Baywords? They seem to have a temporary problem with new registrations - not working (tested just now) but the notice is dated August 1st!

Re Google - I have no idea how it works, though I've had some rather viral publications that went to Instructables, then Make Magazine, then suddenly over 50 hits. And at the other extreme, a standard website that has been there for three years that Google still can't find, despite manually registering it regularly with Google.

I guess it is a bit of a game working out how to promote things. Awaiting word back from the print media - 'tis old fashioned but I kind of like old fashioned.

 

[Ole Juul]

@ Dr_Acula: Baywords is a cool site and definately not web2.0, but they're a dysfunctional kind of geeky. I've had a blog there since they started and they've had "technical" problems all along. /snicker

If you want functional click here http://wordpress.com/signup/
They're also a big site with great "googleicity". I don't have a blog with them but I use the software on my own site. You can do the same and if you don't know how to install it, someone from the wordpress gang will do it for you for free. I beleive it's called wordpress4free.

 

[Dr_Acula]

Thanks for the blog hints. I've never really got into blogs, preferring to fire up an ancient version of FrontPage and build a webpage, but blogs do look more modern. Memo to self - I must start to move with the times...

Re the wikipedia article, I've been in touch with a colleague in New Zealand who is a staff writer for Silicon Chip and he has offered to write the article. This might actually be a good thing rather than me doing it, as he can write it from that objective angle that EvanK was talking about. So - I post a board over to New Zealand and our writer/reviewer unpacks it, reads the instructions, and tests it to see what it can do. I think that sort of writeup is what Wikipedia is looking for.